HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-19 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 1984
7:30 p.m.
•
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 20,
1984, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Paul Johnston, Mayor Pro-Tem
Kent Rose
Chuck Anderson
Colleen Kline
Hermann Stau€er
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was the selection of a member of the Planning
and Environmental Commission. A vote was taken and Gordon Pierce was
elected to a 4-year term.
• The next item on the agenda was a discussion of the proposed Forest Service
land exchange. The Council received the Environmental Assessment study last
week. Ron Phillips said that the Town is under somewhat of a short time schedule
in that the Environmental -Assessment has to be reviewed over a period of about
one month and the comments and recommendations from the Forest Supervisor will
be sent to the Regional Forester on or about December 12, 1984. If the
Town wishes to comment, it should do so prior to December 12. Ron Phillips
said that he and the Community Development Department had reviewed the
Assessment and have a number of comments and recommendations pertaining to
it. Ron Phillips then read the Review of the Forest Service Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Land Exchange memorandum dated November 19, 1984
(copy attached). Mr. Phillips also said that the particular interest of the
Forest Service is not the same as the public nterest. Dave Stark, District
Ranger, was also present, but did not have any comments. Bill Wilto wanted to
voice his opinion to the proposal. The Town Council has always opposed Forest
Service land exchanges and to allow it now would be a precedent setting move.
He requested that the Council do everything within its power to see that this
transfer does not take place. The next person to give his comments was Eric
Affeldt. He complimented the Manager and the staff for the questions and
issues raised. He wanted to know if the Town Manager has had any response from
• the Forest Service regarding assumptions on develoment of the land. Ron Phillips
said that the Forest Service has not had a chance to respond to our comments.
He also wanted to know how the zoning question had been addressed by Council
and the Forest Service. Ron Phillips said that the question had not been
addressed. Peter Patten said that there was a draft agreement presented to
Council regarding densities on the Spraddle Creek and Lodge parcels earlier
this summer. Mr. Affeldt wanted to know whether the parking issue at the Lodge
had been addressed. Peter Patten said according to current zoning, parking is
not allowed but that a variance could be requested. He then questioned whether
or not the Town had received any documentation relating to comparable value of
the parcels involved. Ron Phillips said that the Town had not. Roger Tilkemeier,
representing Spraddle Creek Ranch, Inc., said that according to the Environmental
Assessment, the Spraddle Creek Ranch is not even there. The Ranch people have
also never been consulted in respect to the impact it would have on the operation.
The ranch serves approximately 5,000 people in the summer. Mr. Tilkemeier does
not think additional residential sites are needed in the Valley. He feels
very strongly that something needs to be done with the expansion of the Lodge.
The Lodge is the only property that can effectively compete with the planned
hotel at Beaver Creek. Rodney Slifer said what we need to do this evening is take
a position so that there can be dialogue between now and the December date.
He said that about one month ago, he and Ron Phillips met with the Regional
• Forester at an CAST meeting and expressed their concerns about the land exchange
process: (1) lack of sensitivity to local governments; (2) there is no public
process for involvement in making decision; and (3) the method of arriving at
appraised values. They also make presumptions in regard to zoning. For these
reasons, Rodney Slifer opposes the exchange. He is personally in favor of
the Lodge expansion. He also endorses all the comments of the Town Manager and
Staff. Paul Johnston said that if additional units were created in the area
of the Lodge, it would greatly increase the traffic problems. Gail Wahrlich-
l J
Vail Town Council Meeting
Tuesday, November 20, 1984
Page 2
Lowenthal thinks we should respect reality in that the Eagle's Nest land
is very important to the Forest Service. She does not agree with the staff
recommendation that we support Alternative B. She cannot support any Spraddle
Creek decisions until a joint plan for both parcels is made. Chuck Anderson
cannot endorse Alternative B. He thinks we should hold off taking a position
until December 4.meeting. Hermann Staufer would support Alternative B as it is
in the public interest. He recommends that council go ahead and endorse the
Staff proposal. He also encourages the Lodge to go ahead and develop. Kent
Rose said he supports pursuing Alternative B. He also wanted to know if this land
is on the disposal list. Dave Stark said it is in the interest of the people of
the United States to get the most benefit out of this land. Mr.. Stark said
that if the Town asked that the parcel be removed from the list, it would take
a master plan on land proposals. Ron Phillips said that the need for such a
policy has been discussed. In the budget for Community Development, there is
an item for a Land Use Master Plan, which includes s study of all adjacent
land and the Town's policy regarding those. John Donovan wanted to know how
many pieces of private property are in the Eagle's Nest Wilderness Area. Dave
Stark said there are a number of them. Rodney Slifer said that he would support
Alternative B. He believes the appraisal should evaluate the current zoning.
• A response needs to -be at the Forest Service by December 12, 1984. Ron
Phillips wanted to know if the appraised value of the parcels is ever made
public. Dave Stark said that the complete appraisal package had not yet been
received. Rodney Slifer said, after some discussion, that it seems the consensus
is that taking a formal stand will be done at the December 4 meeting.
The next item on the agenda was the Hazard Ordinance. Ron Phillips said that the
Planning Commission and Council reviewed the Hazard Ordinance last spring. It
was then tabled to allow time for the mapping project to be finished. We now
anticipate that the maps will be available by the end of November and recommend
that the original Hazard Ordinance be removed from the table and be sent back
to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. When that is done, the PEC will
be able to review those maps and the Ordinance on December 10; and if they
recommend adoption, the Council can then consider for first reading on December 18.
A motion was made by Paul Johnston to untable the tabling, which was seconded by
Chuck Anderson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 33, Series of
1984, an Ordinance Accepting Certain Improvements -Constructed and Installed in
and for Lionshead Improvement. District, Determining the Total Cost thereof,
Receiving and Accepting the Assessment Roll Apportioning the Cost thereof to
be Paid by Special Assessments as among Affected Properties within the District,
Assessing said Cost as Apportioned therein against each Assessable Lot or Tract
of Land within the District Specially Benefited by Said Improvements, Prescribing
the Method of Paying and Collecting said Assessments, Describing the Lien Securing
Payment Thereof, Making Necessary Findings with Respect to the Satisfaction of
all Conditions and requirements relating to the Foregoing, and Limited Actions
Challenging the Proceedings. Bill Pyka explained this Ordinance is the final
step in establishing assessments for the Lionshead Mall. $955,000 of bonds
were issued. The Ordinance is set for public hearing on December 4. We want to
establish the assessment date as close as possible to the beginning of 1985. Gail
Wahrlich-Lowenthal wanted to know if we know how much we are coming in under
budget. Bill Pyka said he did not know exactly. We will first need to know the
timing on the ordinance in order to calculate interest. He thinks we are currently
$50,000-$100,000 under budget. We can add to the project with those funds or we
can pay down the debt. Ron Phillips said we are again looking at the situation
at the West end of the Mall and there could be an expenditure of funds on that.
Chuck Anderson wanted to know if we could put the money into an escrow contingency
account. Bill Pyka said the money has to be spent within 3 years. A motion was
made by Chuck Anderson to approve Ordinance No. 33 on first reading, which was
seconded by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
. In Citizen Participation, John Donovan wanted to thank the Town for cleaning the
Interstate Highway rights -of -way.
In his Town Manager Report, Ron Phillips said that the Town has had their seasonal
employee orientations, which have gone very well; the mountain is opening tomorrow;
and there have been meetings with all departments on the proposed compensation
Mail Town Concil Meeting
Tuesday, November 20, 1984
Page 3
•
plan. These meetings have gone very well.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, rk
•
•
Respectfully submitted,
Rodney E. Sl�'fer`, ayur�
TO: Town Council
FROM: Ron Phillips
DATE: November 19, 1984
SUBJECT: Review of the Forest Service Environmental Assessment for
the proposed land exchange
The Town of Vail staff has reviewed the Environmental Assessment received
last week for the land exchange proposal. The Environmental Assessment
addressed three alternatives for action regarding the proposal. Alternative
A is proceeding with the trade as proposed. As you know, the proposal
is to trade the 40 acreSpraddle Creek parcel along with only 2.5 acres
of the 15 acre Lodge parcel for two parcels surrounded by Eagle's Nest
Wilderness area totalling 385 acres. The Forest Service puts a high priority
on obtaining these wilderness inholdings for their management purposes.
Alternative B represents the Town of Vail proposal to obtain the Spraddle
Creek parcel, a portion of the Golf.Course maintenance parcel, and the
40 acre Parcel H (Bighorn). The Town of Vail has, of course, applied
for acquisition of these parcels under the Federal Government Town Site
Act and we have proposed open space and passive recreation uses for these
• parcels.
Alternative C represents the no -action alternative which is required to
be evaluated as part of the environmental assessment process. It is impor-
tant to note that the Environmental Assessment -is not a decision document.
The Assessment sets forth that it is a document disclosing the environmental
consequences of implementing the proposed action and alternatives to that
action. The eventual decision will come in the form of a decision notice
signed by the responsible official (in this case probably the Secretary
of the Interior).
Somewhat frustrating to the staff is the fact that the appraisal values
on the basis for the appraisals on the involved parcels are not addressed
in any form within the Environmental Assessment. We object to the assumptions
upon which these appraisals have been made and find it disconcerting that
it seems these objections cannot be raised within the comment process
on the Environmental Assessment. The staff feels strongly that land appraisals
should respect the existinq zoning on that land unless there has clearly
been alternative aareements reached with the local municipality.
• Our comments on the Environmental Assessment itself are as follows:
1. The EA, on page 2 and in other sections, refers to promotion of
the public interest as it pertains to land exchanges. Furthermore,
in a number of places the word "clearly" is used in relationship
to the public interest. We feel that the Environmental Assessment
slants itself toward a very broad interpretation of the public
Forest Service EA -2- 11/19/84
interest and ignores the public interest of retaining the Federal
lands as open space as a valuable community asset.
2. The EA states in a number of instances that one of the reasons for •
granting land exchanges would be to permit "needed" urban expansion.
The document, however, falls short of addressing the community need
for the proposed developments on the two Federal lands involved.
3. The first paragraph addressing the three alternative scenarios claims
that the Forest Service "is neither endorsing any development plan
nor encouraging any particular application of land .use controls
that are within the jurisdiction of Eagle County or the Town of
Vail." We feel this is untrue in that appraisals for the properties
have been using development scenarios proposed by the Lodge Properties,
Inc.
4. Although municipalities do not receive any preference position in
Forest Service land exchanges/disposals as the document states,
we strongly disagree with this Forest Service position. The staff
believes that municipalities requesting acquisition of Forest Service
properties through the Town Site Act should receive an intergovernmental
cooperative priority when proposals of this magnitude are considered.
Indeed, we feel that this would be "clearly in the public interest."
5. We find the document's continuous reference to environmental, social
and economic impact and consequences from the proposed developments
to be "controlled by local ordinances" disturbing. In continually
making this statement, the EA dismisses specific documentation of
what the proponent has proposed in the way of development on the
parcels involved.
5. Although the document does evaluate some of the impact from the
Lodge at Vail expansion proposal, it addresses the Spraddle Creek
development proposal as "undetermined at this time, but could range
from open space to high density residential and is subject to control
by local ordinances." The land exchange proponent is proposing
low density duplex or single family residential development on the
Spraddle Creek parcel and the EA totally ignores this fact in the
evaluation of the environmental, social and economic impacts on
the community with this statement. Moreover, reviewing the EA's
description of the natural environment and the constraints contained
on the site, it is not valid to assume a high density residential
scenario on this parcel. Furthermore, the EA should evaluate the
impact of all development possibilities.
In describing the Spraddle Creek parcel on page 5, the EA makes two
inaccurate and misleading statements. It states that the Spraddle
Creek parcel is bounded on the south by commercially developed private
land and in fact, for all intents and purposes the parcel is bordered
on the south by Interstate 70 and the frontage roads. No commercially
developed land is present. It also states in the same paragraph that
Vail Associates is presently processing development plans with the
Town of Vail on the adjacent parcel to the east. This is misleading
in that the property is not even annexed to the Town of Vail and the
subdivision proposal is still in the discussion stages.
Forest Service EA -3- 11/19/84
8. On page 6 the document should more clearly point out that the only
reason the Lodge parcel was identified for disposal by the District
Ranger was because the Lodge Properties, Inc. approached the
Forest Service with this proposal and also that disposal of this
property as proposed is clearly in conflict with the proposed White
River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
The EA declined the evaluation of specific environmental consequences
of development for the Spraddle Creek site because no agreement
has been reached at this time with the Town on the zoning densities.
on page 8. Must an agreement be reached with the Town of Vail regarding
densities proposed for these two parcels before the EA committs
itself to evaluate the impact of the development scenarios that
have been openly disclosed to the public? We feel that this is .
the purpose of the EA and that the document approached the evaluation
of the impacts from proposed development on the Lodge parcel,, while
totally ignoring the Spraddle Creek parcel.
10. In looking at the benefits of acquiring the Piney River and Meadow
Creek parcels, the EA is quick to point out that this would eliminate
potential of "damaging adverse use of or access to the property"
and that it would "eliminate the possibility that roads might be
built through this portion of Eagles Nest Wilderness." The questions
of whether or not these roads have been proposed and if there are
• other ways to acheive these ends besides outright acquisition are
not addressed. The EA assumes the only solution to these potential
negative impacts upon the wilderness is to acquire these parcels
and ignores solutions such as agreements with existing property
owners to accomplish Forest Service objectives. Another reason
stated in the EA for acquisition of the parcels in the Eagles Nest
Wilderness is to protect the habitat of the Colorado River cutthrout
trout (a State listed endangered species). Is there a problem
existing with protection of this fish, and how will it be protected
under public ownership?
11. We find the EA seriously sidestepping its intended value in this
land exchange process with the following statement regarding potential
environmental impacts from development on the Spraddle Creek parcel:
"Impacts on air quality, water quality and availability, traffic
congestion and parking may or may not be signficant, depending on
the degree and type of development and would be further addressed
by the Town if development approval is requested."
12. The EA refers to the Spraddle Creek ranch/livery stables permit
as "terminable" with a termination date of December 31, 1991. Does
. this mean that the permittee is guaranteed the right to continue
the permit until that date, or what? The EA also does not state
that the current permittee wishes to continue that permit in its
present location until that date, if not longer..
Forest Service EA -4- 11/19/84
13. Again, in assessing the inpact of development on the Lodge parcel,
the EA basically puts the burden of mitigating the negative on the
existing Town ordinances. The EA is ignoring the question of what
will be the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposal
by continually referring to the Town ordinances having the ability
to mitigate all of the negative impacts. After stating that development
on the Lodge parcel would have impact upon traffic congestion, air
quality, water quality, water availability and parking, the EA concludes
that: "A review of the issues indicates that development of the parcel
would not create significant environmental or other problems that
existing Town ordinances are not capable of mitigating."
14. The last paragraph on Page 9 states that: "The Lodge reports a
trend of guests arriving in public transportation and away from
individual vehicles." A summer guest survey conducted in the Town
of Vail in 1984 reveals that over 90% of our summer guests and over
75% of winter guests arrive in private vehicles.
15. In evaluating water quality and availability for development on
the Lodge parcel the EA states that the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation
Districthas thetreatment capacity and that the Vail Valley Consolidated
Water District has the water right and treatment capacity to support
demand in excess of all potential building in Vail including the
proposed Lodge expansion. We have received conflicting reports •
from the Vail Fire Department regarding water pressure availability
for fire fighting and we have recently learned of Upper Eagle Valley
Sanitation District's interest in increasing water availability
in the Vail Village area.
16. The EA avoids assessing the impacts of development on the Lodge
parcel on the ski area operations by referring to a Sno Engineering
report done early in 1984 and saying that it is on file at the
Forest Service offices in Minturn and Glenwood Springs. We were
under the impression that it was the responsibility of this environmental
assessment to do such evaluations and not simply refer to other
organizations' efforts.
17. The EA states that the height of structures proposed for the Lodge
parcel would be limited due to Town ordinances which address views
from public locations. This area is not in a designated view corridor
as per our ordinance, and this does not apply in this location.
18. On page 10, the EA makes a point of stating that the most significant
positive benefit of exchanging the Lodge parcel is the economic
impact on the Town of Vail. It then follows with a number of very
general statements which taken by themselves are true, but does 40
not in any way relate this to the specific proposal it is to be
evaluating. The EA continues in addressing the Lodge parcel by
stating that it is contiguous to the Town of Vail. It is the Town's
Forest Service EA -5- 11/19/84
well -documented position (via a January 12, 1984 letter from Mayor
Rodney Slifer to Richard E. Woodrow, Forest Service Supervisor)
that this parcel is in the Town of Vail currently and our official
zoning maps also indicate the same thing.
19. On page 11 the EA assumes the proponent developing both the Spraddle
Creek and Lodge parcels and points to the stimulation of the local
economy through employment of construction workers for those develop-
ment projects. This contradicts with other areas of the EA which
refer to only the possibilities of these parcels being developed
and the local control over these decisions. It is from these types
of statements that the EA seems to be particularly pointed toward
the endorsement of the land exchange proposal.
20. In describing Alternative B on page 11, the EA is quick to point
out that Town of Vail ownership of these parcels would compromise
Forest Service management benefits and that money from the sale
of the property would go to the Federal Treasury and not benefit
the local economy or the White River National Forest. The assessment,
by making these statements, again is ignoring the possible benefit
to the community of keeping these lands as open space as it relates
to a number of various community objectives as outlined in our application
• for acquisition of these sites. Furthermore, both our winter and
summer guest surveys over the past several years have very specifically
pointed to the guest perception of Vail as currently being over-
built and on the brink of destroying the beautiful character of
the Vail environment in relationship to the natural environment.
21.. The EA makes a particularly disturbing accusation on page 12 when
it refers to the possibility that the Town could sell or develop
a portion of the Spraddle Creek parcel for residential development.
Our letter of application under the Town Site Act to the Forest
Service specifically states our intentions of keeping the parcel
as open space with the possibility of some minor passive.recreational
facilites as a possibility.
22. On page 12 the EA states that a potential special guest housing
development by the Town on the Bighorn parcel (Parcel H) would disturb
adjacent land owners and compromise access to nearby trail heads
and conflict with the use of the adjacent Gore Creek Campground.
There is no back-up for these statements and we would assure that
any development on the parcel would respect those existing uses.
• 23. Appendix E attempts to answer some of the pertinent questions being
asked by people interested in the land exchange proposal. We offer
the following comments regarding these answers pertaining to some
of those questions:
Forest Service EA -6- 11/19/84
a. In answering question lb, the EA states that "land under a term special
use permit cannot -be escharlhed or otherwise be deleted from the permit
without the prior consent of the permittee unless the government
is prepared to compensate the permittee for the loss suffered."
This should be more specifically answered with relationship
to the existing livery stable.
b. In answering question lc, the EA ignores that selling the parcels
we have requested under the Town Site Act to the Town of Vail
is disposal ,and thus meeting the Forest Service Management
objectives for these parcels.
c. In answering question 2a, the EA indicates that the existing
special use permits on these lands do not qualify the properties
as open space any longer. We seriously disagree with this statement
and feel that the uses on these properties are indeed consistent
with our Agricultural and Open Space zoning for the Spraddle
Creek parcel and the Green Belt and Natural Open Space zoning
on the lodge parcel for the uses existing on the properties
which fall under the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail.
d. Also, in answering question 2a, the EA refers to past decisions
to increase density when Town objectives were being met by such
a decision. It should be clearly stated that this increased .
density was for parcels that were currently zoned for development
and not for land zoned Open Space to be brought in for development.
Staff Recommendation and Final Comment
Overall, the staff feels the EA is quite inadequate in reviewing the
specific environmental impact of the development scenarios proposed
by the proponent of the land exchange. Furthermore, the placement of
the burden of mitigation of any negative impacts upon existing Town
ordinances is negating the entire purpose behind an environmental assessment
for the land exchange proposal. We also find the EA slanted toward
the Forest Service position in attempting to evaluate the various alternatives
and disregarding the past requests and correspondence by the Town of
Vail regarding this land exchange proposal. Furthermore, the EA should
assess how to accomplish some of its "problems" with the private land
in -holdings in the Eagles Nest Wilderness area other than going through
with the land exchange and placing large development pressures on the
Town of Vail which are.not in the public interest, in our opinion. Also, the
EA falls short of explaining how the exchange proposal meets the criteria
of needed urban expansion for development on the parcels as well as
any indication of why the land exchange would clearly be in the public
interest.
In conclusion, the staff recommends that Alternative B be chosen in
that this would represent the community's interest in the most positive
manner for the long term growth and management of that growth for